Mohammed Hijab – Can Sam Harris Hold Rapists and Peadophiles Responsible?

			When I when I get emails from people who are psychologically destabilized by my argument that free
will doesn't exist. These are people who feel like something integral to their psychological life
and well being is being put in jeopardy.
		

			Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. This is a video with a provocative title, I believe
appropriately. So. This academic charlatan Sam Harris, has been left unchallenged for too long. He's
been left and challenged to hold a set of contradictory beliefs and use arguments which are
completely at odds with his own worldviews against religion and religious people. And what does this
person believe? And what am I really getting at? I'm talking about the fact that his individual he
wrote a book called freewill and really in this book, he makes his case that he believes we don't
have any freewill human beings don't have any freewill. And he's basically making the determinist
		

			case the hard determinist case. So he believes that basically antecedent events or an uninterrupted
causal chain is what dictates what we do and there is no scope in that formulation for any kind of
freewill whether it's libertarian freewill, or a compatibilist ik freewill. Now, I'm not gonna go
into a discussion. This video is not about the schools of thought and philosophy, and what are the
advantages and disadvantages of each position, the weakness, strengths and weakness of each
position. Ah, this is not what this video is about. In fact, what this video is about is one
important fact. If you believe that you have no free will,
		

			then you are not responsible for what you do. It's as simple as that morality of morality is
predicated on the assumption that we have free will.
		

			If you don't have free will, I'm not responsible for what I do.
		

			And so a PETA file with all due respect, not only in what they think, not only in what they reflect
on,
		

			but in what they do, actually, is it them doing it? Or are they in the words the famous words of the
charlatan Sam Harris, the academic charlatan, they are biochemical puppets, he uses this term in his
book, in his little booklet that he wrote.
		

			If they're biochemical puppets, so in that case, they're not responsible for what they do. On what
basis is it the case, then? On what basis? Is it the case then, that you can point your scrawny
finger at religion? How dare you? How dare you argue on consequentialist grounds? How dare you argue
on consequentialist grounds or otherwise? How de
		

			that we should be this or do that on welfare is x or this is nonsense, and you know, it's nonsense.
And not only do you know, it's nonsense. Now, did you know somehow is that it's nonsense, but so do
your friends, your confidence, your companions,
		

			colleagues in the new atheist movement like Daniel Dennett, who refuted you?
		

			And I may read, actually what he said in the conclusion of one of his refutations against you, this
is what he said.
		

			He said, He's talking he gave an analogy of playing football, soccer or something like this. And
he's saying, dirty fouling versus intentional fouling this accidental fan. And he says, Are these
distinctions fair? justified? Should Harris be encouraged to argue that there is no real difference
between the dirty player and the rest of the rest? And besides, the dirty player is responsible for
being a dirty player This is who is this is Daniel Dennett, your own friend and confidant, a
philosopher who sees the ridiculousness of the proposition and he's showing you your hypocrisy. Just
look at this his upbringing, basically, this is done it continue. Everybody who plays games must
		

			recognize that games without strictly enforce rules are not worth playing. And the rules that work
best do not make allowances for differences in heritage training or innate skill. So is in society
generally this is done it continuing. We are all considered equal under the law, presumed to be
responsible until and until and unless we prove this to have some definite defect or infirmity that
robs us of our freewill as ordinarily understood. Meaning here what that if you don't have such
freewill, then all of us become non responsible. We're not
		

			responsible for what we do.
		

			So why did you How dare you make moral cases and arguments against religion? You are a hypocrite.
Look at me You're a hypocrite.
		

			How dare you and and your new atheist friends that no the implications of your hard determinist
stance.
		

			They know the implications of that.
		

			They are telling you held on if you really want to go in this direction, these are the entailments.
		

			And we had one of the boys that I debated some time ago spent an hour trying to tell me what bad
things I done in a debate with him, in which he was humiliated in front of millions of people
worldwide, millions of people worldwide. On what basis do you point the finger of moral
responsibility at me, when you're on your worldview, everything I do, everything I do, is just a
product, a net sum of antecedent events in the past or an uninterrupted causal chain.
		

			Hard to tell determine this have no moral case to make, because morality for them is an unfeasible
concept. It's an illusionary concept, or indeed even more than this. It's based on illusionary
assumptions and presuppositions, namely, at least a compatibilist understanding of freewill. Thus, I
say to you now, you can't condemn on moral grounds, pedophiles, and rapists. And you can't even say
that they were responsible for their actions, because in fact, they will not responsible for their
actions, or biochemical puppets.
		

			And what I find really most interesting of all, is that on his flimsy little book that he wrote, so
called book freewill, the man actually had the audacity to write his name, Sam Harris, at the bottom
of it
		

			wasn't Sam Harris that wrote that book, according to Sam Harris. But indeed, it was the antecedent
events of the past and the uninterrupted causal chain that did so.
		

			These are the contradictions that you must enjoy.
		

			And all those who follow you and have this hard deterministic worldview must also enjoy. I will say
one last thing before I finish. In fact, I was watching a debate between him and Daniel Dennett,
where in which she actually said that he receives emails, what people feel they have libertarian
free will, and when the emails come from them, saying that they have been psychologically
destabilized by his worldview. And I want to end with this, listen to me carefully. This man is
going around like some kind of atheist guru telling people how to be spiritual, spiritual, he is now
you know, going around trying to show people how they can be spiritual and basically atheists at the
		

			same time knowing that this is what the human requirement is, that we have a tendency towards these
kinds of themes, psychological tendency, but his friends or the people that follow him feel like his
fatalistic lifestyle that he's presenting for the people is causing them disturb destabilization.
And this really shows you that not only is your worldview is inconsistent with the subsequent moral
claims that you make, but it's destroying the lives of the people who follow you, psychologically,
and ironically, from a welfare perspective as well. So I say Sam Harris, stop the shenanigans. You
are a fraud. And I don't want to hear anything,
		

			of assemblance of a moral
		

			kind of attack or interrogation that you may bring to any religion ever again. Well, Santa Monica
Rahmatullah when I get